and internationalization. Simultaneously, it stressed the importance of diachronic (as well as synchronic) informational bonds between generations of ethnicos, generally seen in the context of ethnic history as the result of the common historical practice of a series of human generations (performed in specific material as well as spiritual attributes and fixed in their consciousness). Soviet terminology suggested the possibility of a synthesis of “perennial” and “modernist” Western approaches on the level of concepts and terminology, without ignoring their differences. This is possible partly because, in the Soviet terms, the ethno-social (cultural) as well as socio-economic aspects of ethnogenesis were equally reflected in a unifying manner.
Dominant as it was, Soviet Ethnography had an alternative school of thought represented by the “bio-spherical” concept of Lev Gumilev and his theory of passionarnost’. Gumilev claimed that his theory was groundbreaking, and therefore claimed to have created a new direction in the social sciences, in fact a new science—“ethnology” (Gumilev 1993, 293). He denied the social origin of nations and insisted on their origin from nature. In a way, this could be considered similar to the “primordialist” approach, but Gumilev’s idea was more far-reaching. He tried to study the nature of “ethnos” by means of the natural sciences, and only additionally via a correlation with history.4 Since Gumilev’s theory has had a profound influence on nationalist thinking in Russia and Putin’s Eurasianism, it is important to consider the main points of Gumilev’s approach, which are the following:
From the point of view of geography as a science, mankind could be considered an anthroposphere, i.e., one of the few spheres of the Earth. This sphere consists of a special substance—Homo sapiens.
An anthroposphere, with all its ethnic subdivisions, is a part of the Earth’s biosphere. Since there are constant biochemical fluctuations and changes within the latter, ethnogenesis should be considered as a part of this natural process.5 In other words, ethnogenesis is a natural process or fluctuation of the biochemical energy of a biosphere`s living substance.
The start of ethnogenesis, according to Gumilev, can be caused by an impulse of biochemical energy which, hypothetically, together with social psyche, creates a mutation that is the beginning of a new ethnicity. As he describes it:
The burst of this energy (passionarnyi or drive impulse) creates movement which depends on the set of circumstances in a certain region of the planet—the geographical one, which influences the economic activity of ethnos; social and historical ones, which influence via the received traditions from previous ethnogeneses. <…> This formulation excludes the possibility to of identifying ethnoses with racial types because races are biological taxons and located on a level higher than historical time (Gumilev 1993, 78).
For Gumilev, there was not and cannot be an ethnos with only one ancestor. All ethnoses have two or more ancestors. “Ethnic substrata, i.e., components of a forming ethnos in the moment of fluctuation of the biosphere’s living substance, are combining and creating a joint system that is a new, original ethnos” (Gumilev 1993, 84).
Along with the social model of the nature of ethnos, Gumilev rejected the importance of collective (ethnic) consciousness as a determining factor for ethnogenesis. “The basis of ethnic relationships lies outside of the sphere of consciousness” (Gumilev 1993, 299). The author claims that the roots of these relationships are on the level of emotions: sympathy and antipathy; love and hatred. Furthermore, in the author’s view, antipathy and sympathy are strictly predetermined by unconscious feeling—complimentarnost`—which was formed on the basis of a natural stereotype of behavior.
Gumilev identified the following phases of ethnogenesis: 1) a burst of creative activity caused by passionarnost` impact.6 At this stage, the new ethnos is born from substrates of the remains of previous ethnoses, which become a basis for a new ethno-social system; 2) an acmatic phase, an increasing development of ethnos which can lead to a break or even collapse of the ethnos but is usually transferred to a phase of inertia; 3) an inertial phase or, one could say, a period of “civilization.” The passionarnost` is decreasing smoothly; 4) a persistent phase, i.e., a transition from dynamic process to homeostasis. The ethnos can be regenerated or become a relic. Gumilev identified a life-span for ethnos—approximately 1,500 years from the moment of the impact until a final disappearance.
Table 2. Ethnogenesis according to Lev Gumilev
| Phases of ethnogenesis | Energy | Life-span of ethnos |
| Origin | Burst of passionarnost’ | New ethnos is born from Ethnic Substrata |
| Acmatic Phase | Active flow of passionarnost’ | Expansion of ethnos |
| Inertial phase | Passionarnost’ decreases | “Civilization age” |
| Persistent phase | Transition to homeostasis or regeneration | Ethnos becomes a relic or disappears |
Practically, passionarnost` functions within ethnic fields which, according to Gumilev, exist in nature as electromagnetic, gravitational and other fields. “The fact of the presence of ethnic fields can be observed not in individual reactions of particular persons but in the collective psychology which influences people” (Gumilev 1989, 301). The rhythms of these fields create the unconscious feeling of complimentarnost`, which vary with different ethnoses.
The majority of Soviet scholars were critical of the original theory, while post-Soviet scholars of the CIS countries tend to take this theory into account and even use it as a basis for further development (Tishkov 1997, 26). In Russia, this is generally connected with the revival of a popular and politically defined idea of Eurasianism, “Yevrasiystvo,” that later developed into “neo-Eurasianism” and evolved into the pseudo-scientific neo-imperialist semi-official state ideology of Putin’s regime (Putin’s Eurasianism). Considering that neo-Eurasianism is crucial to understanding Russian state ethno-geopolitics it will be analyzed separately in Chapter 4.
In post-Soviet Ukraine, Gumilev was initially considered to be valuable probably because of the pendulum effect: everything which was discouraged in the Soviet time must be worth considering. A celebrity edition of Short Encyclopedia of Ethno-State Science (Nationhood and Statehood), by the National Ukrainian Academy of Science (NUAS) was a good example. A whole set of entries in this Encyclopedia dealing with ethnic and national phenomena reflect to various degrees the conceptualizations of Gumilev. In some cases there is no reference to Gumilev; his terminology is used out of context and employed to illustrate the authors’ own positions. Such approaches were often incoherent, since Gumilev’s terms cannot exist outside his bio-spherical theory (Mala 1996).
Generally speaking, we can state that there is a certain consistency among various approaches and types of terminology when we consider such phenomena as “national” and “ethnic community.” So, for instance, the meaning of the term “nation” (as a group of people which become distinct within industrial society) for most of the English-language literature coincides with the meaning of ESO (within capitalist/socialist/post-communist society) for the Soviet tradition and much of the current Ukrainian and Russian academic literature. The term “ethnic community” is understood as a large group of people with a collective
